Indicator Reference Sheet – Suggested Concepts/Topics
Strategic Objective:
To which of the Program’s Strategic Objectives (SOs) does the result measured by this indicator
contribute?
Intermediate Result:
To which of the SO’s Intermediate Results (if appropriate) does this indicator measure a contribution?
Lower Level Result:
To which lower-level result (if appropriate) does this indicator measure a contribution?
Indicator:
Provide the exact wording of the indicator that will measure/track a single impact of one of your
activities. Be as precise as possible, providing a description that is clear and points transparently to
the particular information which your data and calculations will provide.
Date Established:
When did relevant parties agree on the reporting of this indicator?
Date Last Reviewed:
When did relevant parties last review/discuss/alter the indicator?
A. DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition:
Every significant term from the exact wording of the indicator must be clearly defined in this section.
It is not enough merely to restate the indicator, nor is it sufficient to list the particular items you are
planning to include or exclude from your data calculations. This section must define the categories so
that anyone not familiar with your particular program would nonetheless be able to apply criteria or
otherwise know exactly which categories of data should be included in indicator calculations and
which should not.
Unit of Measure:
Normally, the unit of measure should be either NUMBER (#) or PERCENTAGE (%)
Method of Calculation:
This must be a mathematical description of the exact actions (addition, subtraction, division,
multiplication) that will be performed on the raw data to arrive at the value of the indicator that will
be reported. It must match exactly with the indicator provided in the top section, and its elements
must match the items detailed in the precise definition. Any inconsistency must be resolved before the
indicator reference sheet can be considered finalized.
Disaggregated by:
List significant subdivisions in the data that will routinely be divided for the normal presentation of
data (e.g., by sex, facility type, rural/urban location, etc.) if any
Justification/Management Utility:
What are the activities that show that this specific indicator is an especially appropriate measurement
of your project’s impacts and results? Why are these incremental results significant in or for the
health sector? In what way will monitoring of these results contribute toward program success?
Toward what results at a higher level, or which overarching goals, will these indicators ultimately
contribute?
B. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Collection Method:
List the source(s) of the raw data, the levels of collection (is a third party aggregating data or
calculating some intermediate indicators that may affect your indicator values?), and describe the steps
involved in the collection of any/all information needed to construct the indicator’s value for a given
reporting period. Too much detail is better than too little detail here.
Data Sources:
As specifically as possible, identify the documents, databases, organization, and or individuals
that/who will provide raw information or final figures that will be reported through this indicator.
Timing/Frequency of Data Collection:
Normally, this should be reported here in terms of the timing or frequency of indicator calculation. If
data are collected every month but the indicator will be calculate/reported (i.e., collected by USAID)
only annually, the frequency listed here should be Annually.
Estimated Cost of Collection:
Unless this is a special survey or other new M&E activity outside of current or ongoing plans, it will
often be appropriate to note here that the cost will fall within the contract budget, or other similar
language. This section helps USAID keep tract of new budget items or any not previously included in
standard or routing obligations.
Responsible Organization/Individual(s):
With as much clarity as possible, identify the person and position within each relevant organization
who will have responsibility either for providing relevant data or for otherwise contributing to
indicator calculation. In most cases, there will be at least one USAID person and position identified
here AND at least one Implementing Partner person and position.
Location of Data Storage:
In cases where raw data and calculated indicators will be stored by separate organizations, it is a good
idea to note each location where portions of the information that would be necessary to reconstruct the
indicator value will be stored.
C. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REPORTING, AND REVIEW (SCHEDULE, METHODOLOGY,
RESPONSIBILITY)
Data Analysis:
Monitoring indicators typically should be analyzed at least through comparison to baselines and
targets, and considered in terms of their implications for program performance.
Presentation of Data:
Most often, indicator values will be presented in Tables. Graphical presentation may be more
appropriate for some indicators. Qualitative indicators may require more narrative explication.
Review of Data:
Most often, indicator values will be reviewed annually, or less frequently for less frequently
calculated/reported indicators (see “Timing/Frequency of Data Collection “ above).
Reporting of Data:
What is the reporting schedule within USAID – SO team only, or will this indicator be reported
further up to higher levels of oversight, e.g. in R4 annual report?
D. DATA QUALITY ISSUES:
THIS SECTION REPORTS ONLY ON ISSUES RELATED TO DATA QUALITY. ISSUES OF INDICATOR
DEFINITION, PERFORMANCE, RELEVANCE OR DATA AVAILABILITY OR ALTERNATIVE
STANDARDS SHOULD BE EXPLAINED OR EXPLORED IN OTHER SECTIONS.
Initial Data Quality Assessment:
(Validity Concerns): Given what you know at this point in time, how do you feel about the potential
for problems with the quality of data that you will eventually collect and use to calculate this
indicator? Do you think your data validly measure the result targeted by this indicator? Do you
think your measurements are valid metrics for the (conceptual) result you are trying to track here? Do
you expect institutional or other challenges to arise that may affect the degree of measurement error or
other systematic errors in your data set?
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):
(Reliability Concerns) Even if your indicator is valid, are your data reliable? Do you foresee any gaps
or inconsistencies in the data that might affect the soundness of the Indicator’s calculated value, or
your ability to interpret/understand the meaning of the Indicator? If limitations arise, do you judge
them likely to be highly significant, trivial/unimportant, or somewhere in-between?
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:
Think of all of the things that could go wrong with your planned indicator when you start trying to
gather information about real results of your program activities. How will you try to mitigate or
correct for any gaps or measurement errors that may be due to difficulties with the data as noted in the
previous two sections?
E. PERFORMANCE DATA TABLE
Key to Table:
If items are disaggregated or if subsets are provided in parentheses or any other key to understanding
the table at a glance is required, explanatory information should be provided here.
Rationale for Selection of Baselines and Targets
How exactly have you determined your baseline for your indicator value(s)? If no exact baseline was
available, what information did you use for a proxy measure and how did you adjust or otherwise
interpret the data in order to arrive at what you consider to be a reasonable approximation of a
baseline?
How exactly have you determined a target (or targets) for your indicator values? If you have
extrapolated form existing partial data or estimated based on data from another geographical area,
explain your reasoning.
TARGET/PLANNED
ACTUAL
COMMENTS
2003 (Baseline)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Final
Comments:
After calculation of indicator values for one or more periods, note here any adjustments you may have
had to make. Adjustments may be needed, for example, according to information provided in any of
the sections above (e.g., data that were expected to be available turned out not to be available (for
certain disaggregations, for example); data whose quality was already suspect was in the end judged to
be of insufficient validity or reliability; data collection that depended on cooperating government or
NGO entities did not occur or was incomplete). In addition, further (unanticipated) issues may have
arisen in defining, collecting, calculating, or otherwise arriving at sound and transparently
interpretable indicator values. Any such additional information that would be helpful for people
interpreting the meaning or significance of the indicator values should be discussed here.
ILLUSTRATIVE COMPLETED INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Objective: Increased use of high impact health services and improved health practices
Intermediate Result (output measures): N/A
Indicator: DTP3 vaccine coverage
Geographic Focus: In four target zones
Is this an Annual Report Indicator? Yes, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
Date established: January 2001
Date last reviewed: September 30, 2003
Description
Precise Definition(s): When calculating annual coverage of DTP3 from routine data, the definition is as
follows:
Percentage of infants 0-11 months of age in a specified calendar year who were immunized with DTP3
in that calendar year.
The numerator is the number immunized by 12 months with DTP3 in a specified calendar year. The
denominator is the total number of surviving infants less than 12 months of age in the same year.
Unit of Measure: Percentage
Disaggregated by: Geographic location
Justification/Management Utility: DPT3 is the best measure of the use of services and also serves
as a proxy for full immunization coverage. The indicator is an important measure of incremental
progress in the country’s immunization program. When calculated from surveys, the indicator is
helpful in validating the routine reporting system.
Data Collection, Compilation and Analysis
Data Collection Method: Review of written service records
Data Source(s): Written records of services provided at clinics in target zones
Frequency and Timing of Data Collection: Every six months. October report from partners helpful
for compiling Annual Report; April report in a separate report
Budget Mechanism: cost included within the contract with implementing partner
Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: J. Perez, Activity Manager
Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: K. Lee, M&E Specialist form
implementing partner. Semi-annual reports to USAID
Location of Data Storage: Electronic and hard copies to be maintained in USAID/SO5 PMP filing
cabinet and electronic filing system (C:/USAID/Health/PMP) as well as by each partner at their sites.
Questions for Analyzing Data:
a. Is the trend going up or down? In which regions?
b. Which regions have the highest increase and why?
c. What do we know about the immunization rat in areas where USAID does not implement
programs?
d. How do the semi-annual data from partners compare to the annual data from MOH?
Data Quality Issues
Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: January 2001. Official government data from MOH were
compared with project level service statistics to determine data quality.
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): The data collection and analysis do not take
into account the timeliness of the doses or the time interval between the doses.
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Conduct small household survey to
calculate valid coverage rates based on card information in target zones.
Date(s) of Future Data Quality Assessments: 2005
Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessment: TBD BY MISSION
Other Notes
Notes on Baseline/Targets:
Comments
Performance Indicator Values
Year
Target
Actual
2000 (Baseline)
15%
2001
20%
2002
25%
2003
30%
2004
35%
2005
40%
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: September 30, 2003
Notes